header pic

College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!! The Best FREE College Football Forum on the Internet!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Should playoff teams be expanded?

 (Read 1856 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #210 on: January 04, 2019, 11:56:52 AM »
Meh.

#firstworldproblems

Spend two decades as a fan of a non-helmet team, and you'll realize all this BCS, all this CFP, all this other stuff is really other people's concern. For a Purdue fan, every goddamn win is precious.

Point well taken, indeed.

SFBadger96

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 423
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #211 on: January 04, 2019, 12:09:50 PM »
I remember way back when when we argued about the impact a playoff would have on the regular season, how it would change the dynamic in bowl games, etc. And it has come to pass that winning the Rose Bowl or the Sugar Bowl, while still a very nice thing, isn't the same as it used to be. And if the Rose Bowl isn't as good, neither is the Capital One, nor the Outback, etc. So when your 7-5 team plays in the Consolation (I mean Pinstripe) Bowl, you wonder if it's even worth watching (I did end up watching a fair portion of it).

And with conference championship games, that loss to Purdue isn't as catastrophic as it used to be for the conference championship--but the conference championship isn't as important as it used to be. So yeah, week to week, the bigger kids--and thus the media--are less focused on that week's challenge, and more focused on the CFP race.

And for all of that, the CFP is a better way to award a championship. Yes, we still talk about the crazy that was the 1998 rankings and what happened to those teams that just missed. Yes, Penn State/Nebraska, Colorado/Georgia Tech, and BYU are still things we remember (and Notre Dame fans--and only Notre Dame fans--remember Seminole-gate). Just like the some of the calls that probably would get overturned in the modern era, that stood in times past.

I liked the old system, but my team wasn't ever blocked from a championship it might otherwise have had. And yes, Purdue fans (and Wisconsin fans) still celebrate week-to-week wins because every one matters.

And for all of that, I think the most appropriate way to run a playoff would be to reward conference championships above all else--which means all major conference champs get in. That would take beauty contest rankings out of it, and give Purdue and Wazzu a better chance at making it in. And, because of the little guy and Notre Dame, I think one additional space, specifically reserved for the little guy or ND (maybe with the best record, to diminish ND's helmet status? So a 12-0 UCF gets in over an 11-1 ND? Would probably need some kind of minimum requirement for major conference opponents to avoid non-P5 programs intentionally watering down their schedules) makes sense. How to run a six-team playoff is an interesting question. Three at-large births doesn't really seem to get it done, and buys are also a challenge, but maybe not that big a one, if the one and two usually seem pretty clear. So instead of what we had this time around, it would be ND vs. Washington and OU vs. OSU for the opportunity to play Clemson and Alabama.

It would further erode the old bowl system, but it's already lost its cache. And we're not going back...
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 12:12:31 PM by SFBadger96 »

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #212 on: January 04, 2019, 02:27:12 PM »
Going back to the original question, I find it interesting that we're divided 11-11 on whether the playoffs should be expanded.

I voted yes, which is sort of counter to my traditional way of thinking, but I guess I figure we've come this far and there's no going back, so let's get to 8 teams.

I love the idea of giving the P5 conference champs automatic ins, because I want the conference championship to be meaningful.  I'm split on the potential effects on early season bigtime OOC intersectional matchups.  Would teams be more willing to schedule them since an early season loss to Ohio State or Notre Dame wouldn't knock you our of your conference race?  Or would teams be less likely to schedule them since they'd have no need of the SOS boost as long as they win their conference?

I'm unsure on that one.  

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #213 on: January 04, 2019, 02:29:16 PM »
And I also realize this is another example of a helmet team view, aka #1stworldproblems.  I give badgerfan maybe 2 minutes before he shows up and tells me it's irrelevant since helmets won't bother to schedule his badgers under any scenario.  And he'd have a point...

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Player
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 878
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #214 on: January 04, 2019, 02:51:12 PM »
the answer to the ooc matchups within a p5 conf champ guaranteed scenario is... dun dun dunnn... money! surprise

i dont remember which way i voted, but at this time i think i'd vote no. or at least, "lets let this contract play out for more than 4 seasons before making any more drastic changes". didn't see that option in the poll, though.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #215 on: January 04, 2019, 02:59:39 PM »
the answer to the ooc matchups within a p5 conf champ guaranteed scenario is... dun dun dunnn... money! surprise

i dont remember which way i voted, but at this time i think i'd vote no. or at least, "lets let this contract play out for more than 4 seasons before making any more drastic changes". didn't see that option in the poll, though.

Money for sure.  The TV media partners encourage the schools within the conferences they sponsor, to schedule good OOC opponents, because it's good for their inventory.
And MOST ADs like scheduling marquee opponents, because they know it'll fill up the stadium.  These days, even some blue bloods are facing declining attendance numbers, so the better the home schedule, the more tickets they sell.  And not just single game tickets, but season tickets.
But SOS and brand building are also contributing factors, and I just don't know how the dynamic might change if we went to all-conference-champs-in model.

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #216 on: January 04, 2019, 03:08:24 PM »
Well, I think we should look at it from the perspective of a non-helmet. Let's use Michigan State so that this thread can be a #safespace and not #trigger Badge with discussions of Wisconsin's scheduling woes.

Going to 8 gives a team like MSU two potential paths to getting into the CFP:

  • Win your conference.
  • Get an at-large bid.

Assume MSU schedules strong OOC, and we'll use Purdue's OOC this year as an example. Purdue played Missouri, Eastern Michigan, and a ranked Boston College. Not scheduling the best of the best, of course, but a pretty solid schedule when you consider they're playing 9 conference games.

Let's say MSU goes 1-2 against that slate, losing to the two P5 teams, but goes 8-1 and wins the CCG: they're in at 10-3 overall. There was ZERO downside to scheduling tough OOC. At worst they'll be badly-seeded in the CFP.

Now let's say MSU goes 3-0 against that slate. They then go 8-1 in conference but due to tiebreakers, don't go to the CCG. Now they're 11-1 with a strong OOC and their only loss was to a team that went to the CCG: they have an EXCELLENT argument for one of the at-large berths. So they are HELPED by scheduling tough OOC.

So in both of those cases the strong OOC either didn't hurt them or actively helped them. 

Assume MSU schedules 2 MAC teams and one FCS OOC. 

Let's say they go 3-0 OOC, and they go 8-1 in conference, plus win the CCG. At 12-1, their weak OOC schedule and non-helmet status will probably impact their seeding negatively. So even though they'll be in, they won't be a top seed.

Now let's say they go 3-0 OOC, but 8-1 in conference, but don't go to the CCG due to tiebreaker, or like Iowa in 2015, go 9-0 and get to the CCG and perhaps lose to a weaker team from the West. They'll be 11-1 or 12-1, but don't have a conference championship, have a weak OOC slate, and they're not a helmet. There will be easy arguments for another team with similar resume and stronger OOC games to take one of those at-large spots. 

I personally think teams will be helped more than they're hurt by scheduling strong OOC. If you win your conference, it doesn't hurt you at all. If you come CLOSE to winning your conference, a strong OOC can put you over the edge for the at-large selection. And having a weak OOC if you don't win your conference could push you under the line and miss out on that at-large selection, even if you win those games. 

medinabuckeye1

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1980
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #217 on: January 04, 2019, 03:09:57 PM »
I saw a thread or comment on here somewhere (I think it was in this thread) about the ridiculously cheap prices for NC tickets.  

I think there are two forms of fanbases being tapped out:
  • The two team's fanbases are pretty tapped out by wins.  When I attended the 2002 NC Game at the Fiesta Bowl there were TONS of Ohio State fans there and prices were sky high.  A big part of that though is that it was the first opportunity in a LONG time to see Ohio State win (or even play in) a NC Game.  Ohio State hadn't won the NC since the 1968 season and they hadn't played for one since, I believe, the 1980 RoseBowl (1979 season).  Consequently, if you were an Ohio State fan who had wanted for your whole life to see Ohio State win a NC, THAT was your chance.  Clemson and Bama don't have any fans who have been waiting for 20+ years to see their team win (or play for) a NC because they have both done that recently.  
  • The second issue is the format.  Clemson/Bama fans already had opportunities to travel to neutral site CG's a month ago and neutral site semi-finals last week.  Additionally, the short turn-around for the CG is always going to be a problem.  When my brother and I planned our trip to the Fiesta Bowl at the end of the 2002 season we had from the Michigan game on 11/23 until the Bowl game on 1/3 to figure it all out.  The turn-around is WAY shorter now.  The season lasts another week, then there is the CG then the semi-finals are before the end of December.  The turn-around on the NC is even worse at ~10 days.  

Problem #1 is a temporary issue specific to these two teams.  Problem #2 is structural and permanent.  

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #218 on: January 04, 2019, 03:43:46 PM »
Exactly. It's why the Super Bowl is rarely attended by the fans of the teams. It's in a neutral site city and you don't know until 2 weeks prior if your team is in it. And suddenly you're on the hook for travel costs, lodging, tickets, etc. For the Super Bowl the tickets are expensive, moreso than the CFPCG, but it's those travel costs that are difficult. 

It's one thing if it's in Dallas, or Florida, or Atlanta, which is driving distance from a lot of the teams likely to be in it. But nobody is driving from Columbus, or Tuscaloosa, or Clemson, or even Norman, to Santa Clara. 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #219 on: January 04, 2019, 07:38:31 PM »
Expand that.  I live out here in Phoenix and I wouldn't drive there even if Florida was playing.  Why?  The distance from Phx to Santa Clara is longer than the trip from Atlanta to Cleveland.  It's stupid far, no one there cares about college football, and it's stupid far!!!!  :96:











P.S.  It's stupid far!
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

bayareabadger

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #220 on: January 05, 2019, 12:21:27 PM »
Expand that.  I live out here in Phoenix and I wouldn't drive there even if Florida was playing.  Why?  The distance from Phx to Santa Clara is longer than the trip from Atlanta to Cleveland.  It's stupid far, no one there cares about college football, and it's stupid far!!!!  :96:











P.S.  It's stupid far!
The flight might’ve been, maybe not reasonable, but also not four figures.

bayareabadger

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #221 on: January 05, 2019, 01:03:27 PM »
So, I fell into a historical ditch yesterday. I was interested in the 2008 title game, which in my memory was oddly overshadowed by narrative (either that or I was in the midst of 10 of the heaviest drinking days of my life). In retrospect, I think it was. 

You had a game that was within one score for 57 minutes, tied for 29 or so. Oklahoma managed to. Get crushed in yards per play AND barf up 2-3 great opportunities and have two weird picks and still was right there. With the right mindset, it woulda been dramatic and tense. 

But there was so much on the Oklahoma offense that it not working that well overshadowed a lot. Granted, you also had a stupid good Florida offense kinda slowed by an Oklahoma defense no one had any regard for. It was also early in SECism, which kinda detracted from everything.

In looking through all that, I’d forgotten what a tremendous set of teams there were that year. In some ways it was built for the old system, in some it wasn’t. 

The title race ended up getting dominated by two factors, who was gonna escape the SEC and who would escape the Big 12 mess. Penn State was lingering, but slipped up by a point in Iowa City. But the batch of teams that year was tremendous. 

The Florida and Oklahoma teams 
The Bama team that got to 12-1 with a somehow softer schedule than you’d think
Texas and Texas Tech at 12-1 (Texas was pretty legit)
PSU which didn’t have the best schedule, but did have a 9-4 non-conf P5 win, the only loss was by a point and averaged winning 40.2-12.4.
USC, which beat 10-2 OSU by 32, only lost to a 9-4 team by six on the road and averaged winnin 37.5-7.8
An undefeated Utah team win wins against  11, 16 and one borderline team. 

Your 9 and 10 were 12-0 BSU (with 1 very nice win and an unforgivable schedule) and 10-2 Ohio State that has understandable losses and ... ehh, a couple wins vs 9-4 teams. 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #222 on: January 05, 2019, 06:43:47 PM »
Yeah, that Florida defense has gotten a halo effect based on what it did vs OU, but it wasn't special before then.  USC's was special - held 10 opponents to 10 points or less.  That's sick.
-
-
But the Gators' D was more talent than results, probably because the offense kind of went berzerker after the Ole Miss loss and "the promise" by Tebow.  The defense just had to show up, especially against ranked teams:
vs #4 LSU, FLA offense scored 51 points
vs #8 UGA, 49 points
vs #24 USCe, 56 points
@ #23 FSU, 45 points
v #1 Bama, 31 points....I believe that Bama D was #1 at the time, before the Florida and Utah losses.
-
-
-
-
An 8-team playoff in 2008 would have been chock-full of worthy teams, for sure.  But we'd also have undefeated Boise State at 9th, bitching and moaning, despite their high school schedule.  It's a never-ending battle.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 10:52:57 PM by OrangeAfroMan »
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: Should playoff teams be expanded?
« Reply #223 on: January 17, 2019, 09:20:56 AM »
lingering topics members of the CFP's management committee raised during interviews with ESPN:

The value of winning a conference title. By leaving out conference champions, and choosing teams that didn't win their league, does that unintentionally devalue the importance of the regular season -- the very thing the commissioners desperately didn't want to do?

Strength of schedule. How can it be further defined, or is there already too much emphasis on it? The commissioners intentionally didn't want an RPI-type metric to dominate the discussions.

Notre Dame. How is Notre Dame's 12-game résumé measured against conference champions that have won 13 games?

Group of 5. What, if anything, can the Group of 5 do to get top-four consideration?

Expansion. Is it possible to expand the playoff without unraveling the entire sport to its detriment, and if so, how?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25768492/college-football-playoff-expand-now-in-future

 

Please Support Site: